Kevin Walsh Hoover institute recognizes that CB policy is increasing inequality.
The list of perma bears continues to decline.
"I can no longer say I am bearish. When markets become parabolic, the people who exist within them are trend followers, because the guys who are qualitative have got taken out," Hendry said.
"I have been prepared to underperform for the fun of being proved right when markets crash. But that could be in three-and-a-half-years' time."
"I cannot look at myself in the mirror; everything I have believed in I have had to reject. This environment only makes sense through the prism of trends."
I told a friend this summer that the market would likely melt up until the biggest bears lost their franchise or they capitulated. The process seems well on its way.
This market brought to you by global central banks.
Once again via FT
"Western Canada Select, the regional benchmark for low quality, viscous heavy oil, is trading at extreme discounts to other regional blends. It is selling for $63 a barrel this week compared with $86 for similar heavy, sour crude from Mexico and $94.50 against West Texas Intermediate, the US oil benchmark.
According to official figures, Canada exported 2.42m barrels a day of crude to the US in the second quarter of the year, and only 93,000 b/d to other countries."
Tim Duy dissects the latest FED speak:
"Notice a theme above? Fed officials have little faith in any of their alternatives. They want to pull back from quantitative easing, fearing that the costs will turn against them soon, yet have little to offer in return. Not good - it is almost as if the Fed is beginning to believe that they are near the end of their rope.
Interestingly, one of the costs of quantitative easing seems to be the inability to exit quantitative easing.
Bottom Line: Clear evidence of the space we have been in for months. The Fed wants to taper, and is becoming increasingly nervous they will need to pull the trigger on that option before the data allows. That means that tapering is not data dependent. That means the policy deck is stacked with at least one wild card. And that sounds like a recipe for the kind of volatility the Fed is looking to avoid."
Noah Smith, an Economist (The Altantic writer) who lived in Japan assesses Abenomics.
"Yet another possibility, discussed by Mr Summers and supported by many economists (including myself), is to use today’s glut of savings to finance a surge in public investment. That might be partly linked to a shift to lower-carbon growth. "
Agree, I have been saying this for years.
"Alex Tabarrok, “The market doesn’t lie doesn’t mean the market is always correct. A lie is an intentional falsehood. Market manipulation would be analogous to an intentional lie so it’s not impossible for markets to lie only difficult much of the time.” (Marginal Revolution)"
What about LIBOR, what about commodity warehousing, what about insurance companies, what about the fact the western government's felt it was necessary to constrain Microsoft, what about high frequency trading, what about price fixing in the options market, There are large sectors of the economy that are constantly being manipulated. Has Cargill or Archer Daniels Midland ever paid a fine for price fixing corn or soy? Fuck me, these guys are such corporate prostitutes that is makes me want to tear up my Econ degrees.
Many where skeptical when unemployment suddenly dropped under 8% right before the 2012 US election. I pointed out at the time that the numbers didn't make sense to me. (Nor the Fed's actions in lieu of those numbers -doubling down on QE when the economy was supposedly on fire.)
Editor's note: OOPS! My original posts linked to Mish's site an not his actual posts -my apologies.
Zerohedge shared some of the skepticism.
Menzie Chen from EconBrowser wrote in an article critiquing Zerohedge's questioning of whether unemployment statistics are being manipulated : "My question: Why do these right-wing paranoid fantasies persist in an era where everybody has access to a calculator, excel, and the internet? For another excursion into the paranoid delusional world of data-conspiracies, see here. (Actually, another question: why does anybody valuing their brain cells read ZeroHedge?)"
The New York Post is claiming that the unemployment statistics WERE tampered before the election.
To Quote Joseph Heller: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you”
Personally, I like and respect both sites. Chen's statistics based defense of the numbers vs. Zerohedge's more intuitive approach seems like a showdown between deduction (modelling) and induction (looking to the past as a reference point for analysis). Or perhaps Frequentist versus Bayesian thinking.